Chas, some late points, inline ...
At 03:52 AM 8/29/01 -0700, Charles F. Munat wrote:
>The reason to add images (audio, video, etc.) should be -- to my mind -- to
>enhance comprehensibility. Every image that does not add to the
>comprehensibility of the page simply helps to deny that page to someone who
>cannot afford fancy new equipment (or the on-line time to wait).
The reason to add images, etc. should be because you have it and it's
relevant. Do you want to deny access to large numbers of disabled persons
to accommodate those with old equipment? The presence of a graphic on a
page does not deny the page to the person, only the graphic. It's only when
the graphic isn't there that something is "denied" ....
>10. Regarding the WCAG, I think that it is very important that we stress
>that non-text content be designed to increase comprehensibility, not just
>added willy-nilly to make the page pretty. It will be a long time before the
>rest of the world catches up with the First World. Let's not make it any
>longer than it needs to be.
What makes you think that the rest of the world isn't waiting for the
graphics as so many Americans did?
>12. More importantly, we need *very clear* techniques for adding non-text
>content. We need to discuss the basics of layout. We need to discuss things
>such as the use of contrast to draw the user's attention; the idea of first
>read, second read, etc.; the use of repetition to increase comprehensibility
>(I'm talking about repeated visual elements here -- a part of consistency);
>the use of proximity and white space to show relationships; the use of
>alignment to show relationships; and much more. And from our basic
>techniques, we need to link to other sites (if available) that give more
>detailed instructions on how to design graphics, etc. that will be effective
>and *small* (as in small file sizes). To encourage the use of graphics and
>other bandwidth-intensive media without explaining how to use them
>effectively (including minimizing file sizes) would be to do a disservice to
>all those users who are, by reason of economics or geography, unable to
>access bandwidth-intensive pages.
If you'd read the archives you'd see that I've said often that once we say
firmly that graphics have to be there, we can talk about the best way to
accommodate them to all users ... Until then, we have no reason for a say-so.
Anne
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.comhttp://www.erols.com/stevepemhttp://www.geocities.com/apembert45